Removing President Trump from the 2024 Presidential Election Ballot, How Maine and Colorado Have Done, is Unconstitutional
President Trump is NOT subject to being disqualified from being on any 2024 ballots under the very Constitutional Amendment states such as Maine and Colorado are citing to justify doing so, here's why
The Republican Party has appealed the Colorado State’s Supreme Court ruling quite magnificently and succinctly, claiming that, 1.) Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to President Trump because he’s not an “Officer of the United States,” [Officers of the United States being the only subjects of which the Fourteenth Amendment applies to], 2.) The Court’s ruling violates the Republican Party’s First Amendment Associational Right [to choose their own candidate that the people vote for to be on the Federal Election ballot], and 3.) The Colorado State’s Supreme Court does NOT have the power to decide whether or not he’s subject to disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment because it is not self-executing, and must be determined by the US Congress [for which the US Senate has already acquitted him of during the final impeachment of his presidency].
Thanks for reading Fiery, but Mostly Peaceful Sara! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
The appeal recognizes that the Constitution’s insurrection clause does not apply to the President of the United States because, “it only disqualifies “Officers of the United States,” stating that, “this term of art is used in only three places in the Constitution: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, The Commissions Clause, and The Appointments Clause, which provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3.”
In their justifiable claim that the president is NOT an officer of the United States, therefore not subject to the insurrection clause, they also refrence precedent that states, “less than a decade after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator Newton Boothposited, “the President is not an officer of the United States.” Cong. Rec. Containing the Proceedings of the Senate Sitting for the Trial of William W. Belknap 145 (1876).”
Also cited in the appeal to support the above claim was, “near the same time, a treatise determined “[i]t is obvious that . . . the President is not regarded as ‘an officer of, or under, the United States.’” DAVID MCKNIGHT, THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES 346 (1878).”
The appeal supported the above claim also by citing, “most importantly, Attorney General Henry Stanbery defined the term officer in the Fourteenth Amendment as “military as well as civil officers of the United States who had taken the prescribed oath.” 12 U.S. Op. Att’y. Gen. at 158.”
Since the insurrection clause specifically refers to disqualifying “Officers of the United States,” and it has clearly been long since established that the President and Vice President are not considered “Officers of the United States;” the insurrection clause blatantly does NOT apply to President Trump, and therefore, CANNOT be used to disqualify him from being on any state’s presidential election ballot.
The Republicans appeal also correctly claims the Colorado State’s Supreme Court ruling violates the Republican Party’s First Amendment Associational Right to choose its own political candidates stating, “the Colorado Supreme Court’s unprecedented decision violates the Colorado Republican Party’s First Amendment associational right to place the political candidates of its choice on both the primary and general electoral ballots.”
In one of the three of Colorado State’s Supreme Court’s dissenting Justices’, Justice Samour, dissenting statements, he observed in his tremendously well-articulated dissent, he points out that, “the majority’s ruling that Section Three is self-executing [is] the most concerning misstep.” Pet. App. 249a-250a. Congress, and Congress alone, can enforce Section Three. Yet Congress has not provided a private cause of action under Section Three. And the only current enforcement mechanism even arguably available is 18 U.S.C. § 2383, a criminal statute banning insurrection and providing a penalty of disqualification. But President Trump has not been indicted under Section 2383, let alone tried and convicted as would be required to trigger application of Section Three.”
The appeal further states, “this Court has repeatedly held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not itself create a self-executing cause of action. Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly confers the enforcement power on Congress to determine “whether and what legislation is needed to” enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 651 (1966).”
Justice Samour continues to point out that, “in fact, after nearly three years of investigation—first by the United States Attorney for the District of Colombia and then by a Special Counsel specifically tasked with investigating and prosecuting the events of January 6—President Trump, although indicted on several charges, has not been accused of violating Section 2383.”
Thanks for reading Fiery, but Mostly Peaceful Sara! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Dropping the hammer on the Colorado State’s Supreme Court ruling Justice Samour adds, “instead, adding insult to injury, the only time President Trump actually faced a formal allegation of insurrection—in the context of an impeachment proceeding appropriate to political questions such as this—he was acquitted after a trial in the U.S. Senate.”
Meaning, that since according to the US Constitution, the Congress is the ONLY branch of government with the power to decide whether or not President Trump violated the insurrection clause, and since the US Senate already acquitted him in the only formal allegation of insurrection via his impeachment; it has already been officially decided by the proper processes that President Trump is already considered NOT guilty of participating in an insurrection!
Therefore, President Trump is also NOT subject to being disqualified under the very Constitutional Amendment these states are citing while attempting to unconstitutionally use to justify removing their opposition from the ballot!
There is so much legal precedent set, going all the way back to when the Fourteenth Amendment was written, that proves the US Constitution does NOT allow Colorado State’s Supreme Court, or any other state’s, to disqualify President Trump from being on the 2024 Presidential Election ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment [the insurrection clause]. Any decision to do so must be overturned in order to uphold the US Constitution and the Democratic Republic in which we live in.
If you’d like to read more of the details of the appeal, I highlighted the important points of reference in the attached screenshots, or you can click the link below to read the appeal in its entirety.
We must not allow our great Republic to descend into a Banana Republic, abusing our precious US Constitution and Bill of Rights, any further than it already has.
It is very clear that the Colorado State’s Supreme Court’s ruling violates our Constitution’s clearly articulated intentions, instead, warping it to justify their nefarious actions, while completely ignoring over a century of precedent set, all for their malicious purposes of demolishing an opponent that We The People want simply because they hate him with every fiber of their being.
Ignoring all precedents that counter Colorado State’s [and now Maine’s] Supreme Court’s ridiculous decision to unconstitutionally remove President Trump from their ballots, completely omitting the First Amendment Associational Right AND Section Five of the 14th Amendment [designating the power to enforce the provisions set in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Congress], is BEYOND INSANE and completely unacceptable if we expect to remain a functional Republic.
